Article Tools

“Net neutrality” has gained momentum among Internet users but has failed so far to attract much attention from lawmakers.

Big players Google and Verizon recently jumped in together to seize control of the issue. For them, profits are at stake. For individual citizens, freedom is at stake.

Net neutrality simply means that all Internet users should have equal access to all types of information online. This principle fits sublimely into the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. While the Internet could not have been anticipated by our founders, free exchange of information was central to them and a raison d’être of our nation. One needs to look no further than the rights of free speech and freedom of the press.

Google and Verizon have devised a plan that will benefit them both. Directed to the Federal Communications Commission, the plan would expand the power of Internet service providers to manage users’ access to content.

Orwellian phrasing makes it seem that the proposal benefits end users—but in fact it would reduce Internet freedoms.

The fundamental problem is that the Google-Verizon plan supports neutrality principles for wired access—existing cable, DSL, and dial-up—but then excludes wireless and cell phone network access from protection. Of course, both Google and Verizon know well that the future of Internet access is wireless and cell-based. It’s like granting freedom of speech but then excluding online communication from the protection.

Restricting Internet freedom not only harms end users in their access, it also stifles innovation, one of the hallmarks of the Internet. Even Google’s CEO said, “The next two [entrepreneurs] in a garage really do need an open Internet.”

So why are Google and Verizon sponsoring a plan that protects yesterday’s freedom but sabotages tomorrow’s liberty? Capitalism has also been a central part of our country from its beginnings. Profit from successful competition is the fundamental premise of our economy. But capitalism requires true competition, meaning market access for enough competitors to yield the best price and quality for the consumer. When one or very few businesses assume too much market power, monopoly or oligopoly corrupts capitalism and the consumer loses to the power of a few big organizations.

One role of government is to limit those whose market share is so great that their power is unrestrained by competition from others. We have seen a concentration of power in several sectors in our economy. Now Google and Verizon together seek an expansion of their market dominance. Our government should not allow that to happen.

If the Google-Verizon plan is adopted, Internet service providers (like Verizon) will be empowered to use their own discretion to prioritize rights among their users. They may not be able to engage in “undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content” (emphases added) but what is “undue” discrimination? Why should a service provider determine whether content is lawful? This grants providers discretionary power to censor content. We do not even grant that power to our government.

Worse, the plan does not limit wireless providers from discriminating however they choose. They would have free rein to discriminate against even lawful content that they do not like. What if your provider doesn’t like the Huffington Post, Slate, or Rolling Stone? What if your provider wants to grant Amazon an exclusive license to online sales?

So this plan is not just an assault on Internet freedom. It is more fundamentally a blow to freedom of speech itself. While paying lip service to “consumer protections,” the plan inhibits free communication by giving large private companies the power to control content. The so-called consumer protections say the providers (again, wired service only) cannot prevent “lawful” content, “lawful applications,” and access by “legal devices.” Of course, the providers will decide what is lawful. One cannot help but wonder if lawful thought will be in the next revision of the plan.

Perhaps some users will fight (if they have the time, money, and access to lawyers), but we all know most will not. With private bureaucracies having discretion to decide what is lawful and what isn’t, we may all find ourselves in a 1984 where Big Brother is not the government, but a giant private organization.

Companies can wield great power in Washington through lobbying and campaign contributions by their political action committees (PACs). Google NetPAC has contributed $212,500 so far this campaign season. Verizon’s two PACs have contributed more than $1.5 million to campaigns so far.

When large companies try to influence policy, end users need to join hands and make lots of noise to have a chance of being heard. How can the ordinary person hope to fight the influence of the Google-Verizon team? You can exercise your rights of free speech, to assemble, and to petition the government—and you can vote.

Comments

This is very scary stuff: indeed anyone interested in "journalism" -- whether mainstream or alternative -- should be aware that the Internet really is the last place we can all communicate HONESTLY. I've often learned more from the comments' sections of articles than from the articles themselves, which are far too often agenda-driven and biased. Protecting this final bastian of free speech should be paramount to all Americans! Please send links for us all to join petitions, etc., to renounce this insidious development.

Binky - I find it amusing that liberals refuse to see that conservatives often have far more in common with them... than not. To that end, the phrase divide and conquer has never had more relevance. Either we get smart collectively, or "they" win. We agree more than we differ in the long run, methinks.

John,Thank you for your insightful article of another version of big business running big government - to the detriment of the little guy. It is the same with the oil industry corrupting the development of alternative energy and of supporting the invasion of other countries to secure dwindling global oil supplies. It is the same with the financing industry devastating our economy and creating legislation that isolates them from responsibility. It is the same with the health insurance industry being at the bargaining table to bolster their obscene profits. This capitalism-run-amuck is all authorized by the body of congress that you wish to join. As a candidate for congress, what are you going to do that is any different?

The only institution that has the perceived power to block, ban or hinder information is the government. If you want to see a free internet with real freedom of information, the best thing the government can do is leave the internet completely unregulated. These big companies that need to be reigned in may own a lot of wires in the ground, but there are so many mediums of exchange today that I cannot imagine any of the nightmare scenarios that the 'net neutrality' supporters make actually coming true without some path towards resolution through another medium of exchange.

I oppose net neutrality for many reasons. One reason is, as the old saying goes, if it ain't broke then don't fix it. The reason the internet is such a useful tool is because the government doesn't currently really regulate it. If they were given the power, then these big companies like Google and Verizon will inevitably lobby congress to make sure it is regulated in their favor.

I mean, look at how we got to where we are now. Commonly monopolies control high speed ISPs in various areas, and despite this the internet is still relatively inexpensive and useful. This is because the government does not control the flow of the information on the internet, it is completely controlled by private entities.

Imagine how much better it would have been if instead of having the government use tax dollars to build infrastructure and handing it out to a handful of companies, had Company A built the infrastructure for the internet and sold it to individual ISPs and customers then there would be much more choices as far as access goes.

YouCanRingMe, you make an excellent point with big business running government. What I don't agree with is that you call it "capitalism-run-amock". What about big business running the government is capitalism to you? To me, it's corporatism, which is the entire basis for fascist government.

It's also good to see that you blame the financial industry for using government to shield them from responsibility, rather than blaming some phantom 'free market' that I keep hearing about. Obviously there is no free market in this country, the housing bubble was caused by reckless monetary policy coming out of the Federal Reserve combined with tax payer guaranteed housing loans and subsidies. Those are government interventions into the economy, they are the direct cause of the collapse, and the definition of a 'free market' is one without government intervention.

These government interventions caused a huge mis-allocation of resources, which is the definition of a 'bubble economy', and requires a recession or depression (the 'cure') in order to correct the economy. The government is currently trying to spend its way out of the recession, which is only causing more mal-investment. The Wall Street Journal even mentioned recently the concept of a negative interest rate for borrowing.. in other words, you can borrow $1,000 from us now and we will pay you interest on that money so you don't have to pay us back as much because in one year it isn't going to be worth jack squat.. That is what the central bank of this country is trying to signal us. Can anybody say 'hyper inflation' ?